Bleacher Report video of stuff that BR didn't even get themselves that was posted a few days ago and which contents were covered by Ace in the hello post. And yes, I'd kill off BR things with far flimsier excuses. F those guys.

Definitely political. Taking a look at differing views on historical figures like Christopher Columbus might be a start, for a Michigan connection there are plenty of people who are outspoken about what Yost's legacy should be.

I understand the motivation for locking/removing Beckmann-related threads, but I disagree with it. Politically divisive topics, in general, have no place on this board and it's best to avoid them. I get that. Still, there's a difference between political topics in general and political topics that hit extremely close to Michigan sports (and particularly Michigan football). I think it's a little strange and frustrating that we can't discuss something like the Beckmann story when it's clearly a big story that involves our program.

I get why it gets locked, but one thing I really can't agree with across the board is all of the posts in a locked thread becoming invisible. There's no reason it can't be locked with the posts intact. If you're not going to delete the thread entirely, don't just leave the initial post with the usually snarky mod edit saying it's getting locked...

Look at the comments. Backbiting back and forth with no progress or worthwhile discussion. It's like a Rich Rod thread every single time. And if someone wants to dive into that soup, they can there. Because politics turns everyone into MLive.

Incidentally if someone really still wants to see the comments, they can view them in the App. (At least as long as it stays on the small page). But I don't really have a problem with blocking a thread because the comments are inappropriate without them showing. What would be the point of showing inappropriate comments that made the thread be taken down in the first place? They're not taken down at the first bad comment, but when there are more than the mod can deal with without reading it all night. And you can't just take it down because then you end up with a half dozen more posts about the same thing. Moderator Hell.

We hit the jackpot on frowned upon posting behavior. For future reference, a comment on a website alleging criminal activity from a college athlete isn't enough to come here and post. OP's points down to zero for a month as a reminder to get a good source (and maybe leave the O$U and Urban Liar at MLive).

Next obviously going to be deleted thread, somebody is going to go to Bolivian for their efforts for more points, and someone is going to get a huge bump. If you're going to post in such a thread, make it count (relative to the other posts).

Heavily moderated to try to discourage people from reading some hack's crap attempt at destroying the lives of some media personalities.

OP was made an example of (will get points back on 8/31/2013 at 12:01 a.m.) as a not friendly reminder that before you post on this board, or do anything, it's a good idea to consider the moral ramifications.

Because after you called people stupid (sometimes specifically, like you calling WolveinLA2 as smart as a High schooler) dropping flamebait all over the place, someone did it to you? Stop being a hypocrite (especially after you acting like the attack didn't matter thn ran to cry to someone). If you're going to dish it out, take it like a man.

I said WolvinLA2's claim failed to comport with a high school level of understanding of basic economics, which is a simple fact that you've apparently just failed to grasp. I didn't call him stupid (in that thread--I've called him stupid other places, and I've told him why). I called his claim stupid. That's not worthy of moderation because it's (a) true and (b) open to him or anyone else to discuss like a rational adult.

Anyway, the moderator action thread is here to post things that should be deleted, as that guy's post should be, because it's basically at the level of a YouTube comment. If the moderators were to do their jobs, they would delete it. The fact that you think that my posting it here says anything about me "crying" or needing one of your other childishly misogynistic bits of advice makes me sad for you, though.

You just have to face the fact that just because you were a TA or whatever nonsense you endlessly blather about that you're not close to the smartest guy on the boards, no matter how much you tell yourself you are to justify your right to be an asshole to everybody. "Everyone picks on me" because you're being a jerk, not because of the tired Internet trope that "I'm right and they're just mad I'm too smart for them to understand."

It you were as smart as you think you are you'd have the ability to make convincing arguments that sway people to get them on your side rather than being forced to dismiss them because you're incapable of it.

P.S. the only misogyny here is yours. Children run and cry to their mommies (boys and girls); men take responsibility for their actions and incitements. The fact that you naturally assume a negative connotation = woman says more about you than me.

I usually post hoping that somebody who knows what they're talking about will chime in to clear things up. I mean, there have to be economics PhDs around here that can offer insight into the kind of disagreement we were having. But instead we get a kind of knowledge-optional back-and-forth where my admittedly crappy grasp of economics, which has to leave plenty of room for somebody who knows what they're talking about to correct it and move the dialogue further, fails to draw people's attention away from their ego's need to defend the plainly false thing they said. That's pretty depressing and not very Michigan Difference-y.

I believe the consensus among researchers is that rational argument isn't a very good way to change people's minds when they're emotionally invested in something. So I think your third paragraph is just factually incorrect. (Have I insulted you by saying that? If so, why? Does politeness require that I pretend I think everything you say is true? I just think there's scientific evidence that what you said is wrong, and I'm telling you that because I think it's relevant, but of course I'm open to being corrected if you find newer studies or whatever.)

Incidentally, I also love the absolutely indefensible response of the moderators to that thread. They hid some of it from public view, but deleted nothing, which would have been the minimally responsible response to what the comment I linked says. Of course, they never delete comments like that (check upthread for the last thing I linked), and here my view that the moderators are objectively terrible just gains more support. This makes me wonder: who are the actual mods? Is Seth really one of them? Do they communicate with Brian? Will Brian stop talking down about RCMB now that MGoBlog appears to have an established policy of letting "haha your dog is dead" comments stand? What a disappointment from those whom you would expect to be thoughtful about minimal standards for anonymous discourse on the useful parts of the internet.

There has been no moderator action taken on the front page thread, and I'm not sure what gave you the impression there was.

Occasionally people say mean things; usually this results in some kind of a warning, in this case you replied to him and we thought that was enough. If you'd like, I can go to the front page and tell him to play nice with other posters, but what we do very rarely is delete a post (in about eight months I'd say I've deleted maybe fifteen posts) and that juvenile remark is nowhere close to hitting that standard.

If you have a complaint about the sites moderation/moderators, I would invite you to email Brian or Seth with your concerns, but we don't need any more bickering in this already way too full sticky.

Jon- I've met you and like you and normally you're good about this shit. Honestly unless I missed something here I think you were a bit too aggressive in attacking the point, and that was the origin of the flamewar. What came after seems to be a response to your tone.

about which I have no complaints, and then there was the comment I linked, which was solely intended to inflict harm and is the sort of thing that you would only ever say in person if you were trying to incite violence (i.e., is fighting words, i.e., is actually illegal speech). You might look upthread at the previous example I linked if you haven't already. I can conceive of no reason for MGoBlog to tolerate or archive such posts, especially when they contain no other non-trivial content and the infrastructure to moderate such content is in place. If you have to delete what you think provoked it in order to be happy with deleting what was provoked, then fine. But the latter is just garbage and has no place anywhere.

The problem is you're doing research studies in the wrong forum. It doesn't matter if you're right if you can't convince people of it. You need less research classes and more public speaking classes. You don't change things with a research study, you change them by changing hearts and minds.

And if they delete that comment they should delete your whole thread of comments. I like that they don't, even though you've flamebaited ten times as many times as the one you faced. (What happened to "haha someone said a mean thing on the internet...just bravado?). Stop being a baby. (Sorry if I was being offensive to children anywhere out there).

...I'm not waging a political or military campaign. I don't care about hearts and minds. But I am pleased that the facts seem to have been settled.

The insults are improving, too:

"Take it like a man" - misogynistic

"Stop being a baby" - not misogynistic

"panties in a bunch" -misogynistic (and the other thing I had in mind when I pointed out the misogyny)

["boxers in a bunch" - not misogynistic]

See?

If the powers that be were (ridiculously) convinced of the moral equivalence of my being condescending about an elementary point and some jackass posting what can only be described as fighting words--even though to state the equivalence is to declare its absurdity--then they should just delete all of it.

Kids tweet the darndest things. The KKK rallies there are 30 clansmen and 300 people yelling profanities at them. I took it down because it paints a particularly bad picture of another university for the actions of an insane minority. We've had neo-Nazis picketing the synagogue in Ann Arbor every Saturday for years now--I'm sure they would bother a recruit who sees them but it's hardly representative enough of the town to warrant coverage years later, even if it's just a link to a Yahoo article.

I can't think of one article that would hit the NBC Politics section that would be okay to post as an off topic subject, and I think that's pretty obvious. The OP will be taking some time off posting topics as a result.

Clay Travis isn't banned from this site, but 90% of what he says is. Politics, trying to make Urban Meyer culpable for murders by his former player, just so many things wrong with this. Stop making me play Urban Meyer defender this week people.

Am I doing this right? Well, anyways, inthebluelot has made some pretty inflammatory comments in this thread right here about the reason rich rod failed at Michigan is because people didn't like him being a Mexican.

I believe it is safe to say that the people have spoken here - on its face, it's an attempt to be divisive and inflammatory. Posting a simple drinking thread would have been a far more prudent move.

Taking into consideration this user's history, points shall return a few minutes before CMU kickoff, in the hope that the most recent incarnation of this user will at least make an attempt to be more....amiable.

But these types of comments that are clearly inflammatory, are about religion, and about a religion many practice on this site (not that that really matters) really can't be allowed on the site. It appears he's done it before, but another warning is probably appropriate in this case

It would be one thing if he just left it as a post from a month ago or whatever. It'd be another thing if he said get over it, it'd be another thing still if he didn't respond. But he did respond and did so in an inflammatory way.

Accroding to Steve Wiltfong Fournette To Give Michigan A Look this weekend.

As someone pointed out in the thread, the 247Sports piece was posted last week and it was a portion of Monday Recruitin' as well. It has also come up within other threads, so I believe it is well-established enough that this can come down. Also, Bleacher Report link.

This is probably better described as OT, and in any case, it is the OT season and there is clearly a precedent for letting these sorts of threads go during the OT Season. Starting with the last week in August, obviously this will change. Further, mocking (not in a kind way) those who do participate in such threads is not a good idea.

Also this....

OT: NCAA 14 PS3 Dynasty Spots Open

One thread for everyone's information should be enough. I posted this user's info in the previously created OP so everyone could choose.

Posted a better explanation above, but former rival players getting arrested doesn't in and of itself make for a good board topic. The best standard to apply would probably be to think if it would get posted on a neutral conference team's board. Ray Small's problems aren't particularly interesting and he's not a big celebrity, so pretty much the only reason for the post was mockery, which isn't cool.

Potentially Big College Football News Coming

JGB: Thanks for the edit. I realized shortly after posting my second reply how stupid it was to include the same info in the reply I had just complained about, but it was responded to before I could chop it off. Your assumption, as posted in the thread, is correct.